Rooftop solar vs utility solar

[yadayada]

Whoever said that utilities are scared and trying to shoot down their new competition had it right.

 

On some days, countries like Denmark and Germany can be almost entirely powered by wind and solar, something that not so long ago the scaremongers said was impossible and the grid couldn't handle.

 

Sure the grid was designed for centralized power. But we can change the grid. We'd still be in horse carriages if we couldn't move forward once in a while...

Except Denmark and Germany have highest electricity prices  in the world. Several times higher then the US. This hurts the poor.

 

So it is much more expensive, while not being that much greener.

 

Just imagine a very sunny and windy day. 80% of germany gets their power from solar, isnt that great!

 

But then all of a sudden it becomes very cloudy, and now only 40% gets their power from solar. So where do they get the missing 40%? You cannot insta turn on and off a gas or coal plant. I think a gas plant takes about an hour at the very least? and a coal plant several hours.

 

So you need constant coal and gas plants running in the back grounds while everyone is getting their power from solar while feeling pounding themselves on the chest sniffing their own farts and feeling all green.

 

So even on good days when germany gets almost all their power from green sources, there is still a lot of non green power running in the back ground, wasting a lot of energy, polluting the enviroment.

 

So is that worth it? Jack up prices a lot, the poor are more hurt by this, while not reducing carbon emission by all that much. It seems only worth it if solar panels are dirt and dirt cheap, or if batteries come in the picture. That will happen soon enough anyway, without governments forcing expensive solar on everyone.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

But then all of a sudden it becomes very cloudy, and now only 40% gets their power from solar. So where do they get the missing 40%? You cannot insta turn on and off a gas or coal plant. I think a gas plant takes about an hour at the very least? and a coal plant several hours.

 

So you need constant coal and gas plants running in the back grounds while everyone is getting their power from solar while feeling pounding themselves on the chest sniffing their own farts and feeling all green.

 

I have a hard time swallowing this argument because the utilities could simply green this up with utility-scale battery storage.

 

Only run the natural gas and coal generators during peak load times or when the sun doesn't shine (night time).  Charge the batteries during those hours.

 

Deplete the stored energy in the batteries when clouds pass overhead and solar production drops.

 

 

This eliminates the need to have wasted coal energy running 24/7 in the background.

 

You can fire up the natural gas/coal generators when it looks like the batteries are nearing depletion of their charge.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

For example:

 

I don't need a coal fired power plant running 24/7 at my house to handle a possible blackout or brown-out without interruption.

 

I merely need a Tesla home battery in my garage.

 

When/if the battery nears depletion, I could at that point start a generator.

 

My electric utility could follow the same line of reasoning here instead of running a coal plant 24/7 to handle the possibility of clouds (which is similar to a brown-out from their perspective).

[DavidVY]

@Ericopoly- The problem is making a battery that can efficiently hold that large of a charge.

 

Maybe its a possibility, but its still a fantasy at the point.

 

I do agree with you about the CA tax rate impacting solar decision but those argument don't hold up as well outside of SoCal. SF is in CA, but solar will have much worse results there (laughs, because thats where all the solar tech is being dreamed up). SF is sunny, then cloudy, then rains for 15 mins, then get sunny again for an hour, then cloud rolls over. Desire > Reality

 

Don't even get me started on Denver, NYC or Maine.

 

[Liberty]

Whoever said that utilities are scared and trying to shoot down their new competition had it right.

 

On some days, countries like Denmark and Germany can be almost entirely powered by wind and solar, something that not so long ago the scaremongers said was impossible and the grid couldn't handle.

 

Sure the grid was designed for centralized power. But we can change the grid. We'd still be in horse carriages if we couldn't move forward once in a while...

Except Denmark and Germany have highest electricity prices  in the world. Several times higher then the US. This hurts the poor.

 

So it is much more expensive, while not being that much greener.

 

I didn't say that renewables were cheaper right now, but they'll soon be, and prices are more complex than that. Fossil fuels get lots of direct and indirect subsidies that are paid by taxpayers even if they don't show up on the electricity bill.

 

There's no doubt which way things are going, and you can't get to the endpoint without starting first with the higher cost and transitional period.

[ERICOPOLY]

Actually, if I invested it securely in Treasury bonds I would need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Treasuries in order to generate enough after-tax income to pay my solar bill.

 

Or, much more favorable, I just invest $20,000 in solar panels.

 

Solar is "capital light" in this regard.

 

Got it. I agree that if you're comparing solar to other investments then the return to you is tax advantaged.

 

For folks who are in middle income brackets and thinking about this as "solar vs. utility" the calculus is different, and I think the taxes are not as big of a factor.

 

Also:

 

The utility charges them less for their power because they don't use as much power.

 

For example, they don't have swimming pools (running the pool pump uses a lot of power).

 

Or in theory their homes are smaller and require less air conditioning and lighting.

 

My utility has a tiered rate structure where the price goes up if you use more.

 

They start off charging something like only 9 cents per kWh for basic home needs (cooking/lighting) and if you use more than that they ramp it up to 40+ cents per kWh.

 

So solar panels might only yield 9 cents per kWh for some people who invest in them.

However mine would yield at least 30 cents. 

 

So if you are on a Tiered system, the payoff is better if you are an energy "pig".

 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

@Ericopoly- The problem is making a battery that can efficiently hold that large of a charge.

 

Maybe its a possibility, but its still a fantasy at the point.

 

It only has to be large enough to handle the drop in solar power until they can get a natural gas turbine fired up and online.

 

So it might not actually be all that much stored power.  I dunno.

 

[Uccmal]

But then all of a sudden it becomes very cloudy, and now only 40% gets their power from solar. So where do they get the missing 40%? You cannot insta turn on and off a gas or coal plant. I think a gas plant takes about an hour at the very least? and a coal plant several hours.

 

So you need constant coal and gas plants running in the back grounds while everyone is getting their power from solar while feeling pounding themselves on the chest sniffing their own farts and feeling all green.

 

I have a hard time swallowing this argument because the utilities could simply green this up with utility-scale battery storage.

 

Only run the natural gas and coal generators during peak load times or when the sun doesn't shine (night time).  Charge the batteries during those hours.

 

Deplete the stored energy in the batteries when clouds pass overhead and solar production drops.

 

 

This eliminates the need to have wasted coal energy running 24/7 in the background.

 

You can fire up the natural gas/coal generators when it looks like the batteries are nearing depletion of their charge.

 

 

The problem with bureaucracies such as Germany is they are thinking this all wrong.  Everyone's thinking is still caught in centralized power being the best way.  In some cases such as Germany, or Canada it probably makes sense to use Nukes and Fossils, but there are lots of areas where solar makes more sense.  In some areas fossil fuels make no sense.  In Page Az, there is a huge coal fired power plant that was built to create jobs 50 years ago.  It makes no sense to use coal in that area of Az. where it rains about 20 days a year for an hour or two at a stretch. 

 

People all over the world are operating off the grid with solar power and car batteries.  During the day, they charge the batteries.  A few car batteries then drain off into the compact fluorescents.  They will get even more mileage with LEDs.  Keep the cell phone charging during the day. 

 

As storage improves, jump started by groups like Tesla, local power makes more and more sense. 

[HJ]

Storage is THE PROBLEM to solve.  But the interesting thing is it's exactly the function that fossil fuel does so well.  Your body stores energy in the form of body fat.  Some of the properties of oil are that it's highly compact in energy content, one drop contains a lot, it's liquid, so easy to transport.  It replaces a previous generation of nature's battery, coal, where these properties are of greater importance. 

 

I do believe it's in the interest of humanity to solve the energy problem.  But it's clearly debatable as to how the government should support this effort.  Acting as if the government, out of all entities, already know what the future is supposed to be, is questionable at best..

[kab60]

Except Denmark and Germany have highest electricity prices  in the world. Several times higher then the US. This hurts the poor.

 

So it is much more expensive, while not being that much greener.

 

Just imagine a very sunny and windy day. 80% of germany gets their power from solar, isnt that great!

 

But then all of a sudden it becomes very cloudy, and now only 40% gets their power from solar. So where do they get the missing 40%? You cannot insta turn on and off a gas or coal plant. I think a gas plant takes about an hour at the very least? and a coal plant several hours.

 

So you need constant coal and gas plants running in the back grounds while everyone is getting their power from solar while feeling pounding themselves on the chest sniffing their own farts and feeling all green.

 

So even on good days when germany gets almost all their power from green sources, there is still a lot of non green power running in the back ground, wasting a lot of energy, polluting the enviroment.

 

So is that worth it? Jack up prices a lot, the poor are more hurt by this, while not reducing carbon emission by all that much. It seems only worth it if solar panels are dirt and dirt cheap, or if batteries come in the picture. That will happen soon enough anyway, without governments forcing expensive solar on everyone.

Again, Denmark has some of the (if not THE) cheapest wholesale electricity prices in Europe but slap 400 percent taxes on top and it's not the case anymore. That doesn't say anything about the real cost of electricity though.

 

Generally, it's extremely difficult to compare electricity prices because each country does it differently which is why the European Union are working towards an internal market for energy so subsidies are harmonized (that's not gonna be easy). Countries like Germany aren't isolated energy islands, they - along with the rest of Northern Europe and the UK - are building interconnectors across the borders. For an example, there's usually a six hour time difference between when the wind peaks in UK and Denmark, so an interconnector makes it possible to supplement it each. Danmark is connected to Sweden, Norway, (UK and Holland is on the way) as well as two different parts of Germany. There are alot of knobs to turn, including large scale storage (Siemens are working on storing electricity in thermal form in the earth, Tesla are working on batteries etc) and flexible consumption. Germany, as another example, are working on interconnectors from the windy areas near the North Sea to the industrial clusters in the South as well as interconnectors to Norway where hydro power works as natural storage.

 

While everyone is talking about solar, don't forget onshore wind turbines. They're the cheapest new source of energy in Denmark and in some states in the US onshore turbines actually beat gas. Solar isn't quiet there yet but prices have gone down 80 percent in five years so things are moving extremely fast on that front - and alot faster than anyone thought possible just a couple of years ago.

 

Back in the 80'ties, critics said that wind turbines would never be able to supply a substantial amount of energy cheaply. Today is supplies more than 100 percent of the electricity to Denmark today on windy days (the rest it exported). Storage is an issue, but there are ways and I believe gas - biogas as well - is gonna play a big role at least as a transition fuel.

 

When looking at cost of energy, which is the only way to compare different sources of energy, you don't factor in all of the external costs associated with fossil fuels. Coal, for one thing, is the main source of mercury polution in most Western countries and according to studies (that I haven't studied in detail) are responsible for +20k premature deaths in the EU every year. But right now, due to high cash prices, low coal prices and almost non-existing taxes on CO2 in the US atm, Germany are closing modern gasfired powerplants and firing up old depreciated lignite plants (the worst source of energy). It's not gonna be easy but it will be possible to transition to a lot more renewables - the question is what role utilities are gonna play.

[Liberty]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

 

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

 

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.[...]

 

Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

 

[ERICOPOLY]

In Page Az, there is a huge coal fired power plant that was built to create jobs 50 years ago.  It makes no sense to use coal in that area of Az. where it rains about 20 days a year for an hour or two at a stretch. 

 

That one is visible from the Lake Powell recreation area, which is too bad because otherwise you just have natural beauty on the horizon.

 

Australian electricity generation is 80% powered from coal.  And they have a lot of sunshine.  The other half of their extracted coal is exported.  There's a country that is going to be difficult to reform given the huge revenue they derive from their coal exports.

[Uccmal]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

 

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

 

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.[...]

 

Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

 

 

What should governments do?  I think they need to stay out of the way at this point.  Getting rid of subsidies across the board for all energy types would be a start.  I think there is enough inertia in the system to allow market forces to sort out what is best and where.  Fossil fuel producers complain that alt energy is subsidized while conveniently ignoring their own subsidies directly through tax breaks, and indirectly through infrastructure spending.  Easier said than done since most non-Us utilities are government run. 

[DavidVY]

One key thing about the energy system and power grid is that it isn't built for optimization of today, yesterday or tomorrow but for 40-50 years from now.

 

The key is diversity of energy sources not a push into one direction or another. Redundancy and Stability > Optimization.

 

Another issue is that as the world grows, energy use will likely outpace the ability for renewable energy to keep up. Most of the fossil fuel usage growth will come from the 3rd world.

 

We might be pioneers in renewable energy, but don't misunderstate the importance of fossil fuels for a continued world prosperity

 

For those more interested I recommend reading

 

-Following oil : four decades of cycle-testing experiences and what they foretell about U.S. energy i (2014) By Petrie, Thomas A.

-Gusher of lies : the dangerous delusions of energy independence / (2008) By Bryce, Robert.

 

 

[Liberty]

Solar will crush all fossil fuels eventually, just a question of when. Removing all subsidies on all sides would help it, but hard to do that retroactively, so I'm in favor of helping solar a while longer.

 

http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/06/price-of-solar-power-drop-graph.jpg

[Partner24]

The trend is very clear. Thank you Liberty for that graph! If it helps the environment (global warming) and the families and cut the financial resources of some very ethicaly questionable countries, I'm in for a continued financial support, especially if it helps decrease the production price of solar energy.

[kab60]

For solar nerds this report has some interesting data on cost reductions (it's from february 2015): http://www.agora-energiewende.org/fileadmin/downloads/publikationen/Studien/PV_Cost_2050/AgoraEnergiewende_Current_and_Future_Cost_of_PV_Feb2015_web.pdf

[Guest longinvestor]

The trend is very clear. Thank you Liberty for that graph! If it helps the environment (global warming) and the families and cut the financial resources of some very ethicaly questionable countries, I'm in for a continued financial support, especially if it helps decrease the production price of solar energy.

+1

There was a question about Solar, specifically about the threat of rooftop on utility scale solar at the BRK Meeting. Munger asked Abel to respond to the question" Is rooftop solar a net positive or negative to BHE?". Abel said net +ive. WEB chimed in with the comment "as long as the cost per unit keeps getting lower"

[sys]

... For folks who are in middle income brackets and thinking about this as "solar vs. utility" the calculus is different, and I think the taxes are not as big of a factor.

 

... So if you are on a Tiered system, the payoff is better if you are an energy "pig".

 

as a middle income bracket california resident, i can attest that you don't need to be in the upper income brackets for home solar to make sense in california.  my energy statements suggest i use much less energy than the median similar-sized house, and my house is probably around median size (or smaller), but i still pay through the nose for energy in the summer when both the ac and the pool pump are running frequently.  with the tiered pricing schedule, installing enough solar to replace those expensive tiers of use would be a no brainer for me - and hence likely for the majority of californians (at least non coastal, non far northern californians).

[Jurgis]

If I was in non-snowy state, I'd probably get rooftop solar. Losing 3 months during snow cover and potential panel/roof damage in New England winter scares me so far. I'll be late adopter and see if solar tiles/slates will become cheap enough soon: http://www.solarcentury.com/uk/c21e-tiles-and-slates/

[rayfinkle]

If I was in non-snowy state, I'd probably get rooftop solar. Losing 3 months during snow cover and potential panel/roof damage in New England winter scares me so far. I'll be late adopter and see if solar tiles/slates will become cheap enough soon: http://www.solarcentury.com/uk/c21e-tiles-and-slates/

 

NY, NJ, & MA are some of the bigger markets for resi. solar. snow typically is not a huge issue for solar production (they price this into your rate typically, and solar irradiation is much lower in winter anyway, so you'll still save money).

 

Finally...typical solar leases come with warranty on roof penetrations. They won't install if your roof is too old/wrong material/poor condition.

 

 

[Jurgis]

If I was in non-snowy state, I'd probably get rooftop solar. Losing 3 months during snow cover and potential panel/roof damage in New England winter scares me so far. I'll be late adopter and see if solar tiles/slates will become cheap enough soon: http://www.solarcentury.com/uk/c21e-tiles-and-slates/

 

NY, NJ, & MA are some of the bigger markets for resi. solar. snow typically is not a huge issue for solar production (they price this into your rate typically, and solar irradiation is much lower in winter anyway, so you'll still save money).

 

Finally...typical solar leases come with warranty on roof penetrations. They won't install if your roof is too old/wrong material/poor condition.

 

If you were doing rooftop solar in MA, would you do lease or purchase? Any good companies to consider and any bad ones to avoid?

 

I'm still not convinced, but would like more info/ideas/feedback. :)

 

Thanks

[rayfinkle]

Pm me If you'd like to chat. I'd prob. Lease to get the insurance, maintenance, monitoring etc.

[APG12]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

 

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

 

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.[...]

 

Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

 

This analysis is egregious. From the paper:

Post-tax consumer subsidies

arise when the price paid by consumers is below the supply cost of energy plus an appropriate “Pigouvian” (or “corrective”) tax that reflects the environmental damage

associated with energy consumption and an additional consumption tax that should be

applied to all consumption goods for raising revenues.

 

They include ridiculous negative externalities like: "externalities associated with the use of road fuels in vehicles, such as traffic

congestion and accidents (most important)". Are electric cars not going to crash or cause congestion on the roads? Is it really right to attribute this stuff to fossil fuels? It's clear that they make every effort possible to attribute costs to fossil fuels. I didn't look into it but I'd venture to guess that the estimated 'costs' of CO2 emissions- a necessarily rough estimate- aren't conservative.

 

Where do they account for hidden benefits? The value of driving your spouse to the emergency room is supposedly equal to the $3.00 paid for a gallon of gas. What about the incalculable number of positive externalities that result from living in a society where everyone has access to cheap, reliable energy? Stern says fossil fuel use "damages economies, particularly in poorer countries." The very reason poorer countries are particularly affected by climate is because they are not industrialized- they don't have access to the cheap reliable energy fossil fuels provide.

 

These sorts of 'studies' do not attempt to look at the cost/benefit analysis of fossil fuels in totality. They are almost all focused solely on the negative aspects of fossil fuels. IMO, the widespread nature of this bias (and a few others) is indicative of an ideological phenomenon.

[rkbabang]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

 

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

 

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.[...]

 

Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

 

This analysis is egregious. From the paper:

Post-tax consumer subsidies

arise when the price paid by consumers is below the supply cost of energy plus an appropriate “Pigouvian” (or “corrective”) tax that reflects the environmental damage

associated with energy consumption and an additional consumption tax that should be

applied to all consumption goods for raising revenues.

 

They include ridiculous negative externalities like: "externalities associated with the use of road fuels in vehicles, such as traffic

congestion and accidents (most important)". Are electric cars not going to crash or cause congestion on the roads? Is it really right to attribute this stuff to fossil fuels? It's clear that they make every effort possible to attribute costs to fossil fuels. I didn't look into it but I'd venture to guess that the estimated 'costs' of CO2 emissions- a necessarily rough estimate- aren't conservative.

 

Where do they account for hidden benefits? The value of driving your spouse to the emergency room is supposedly equal to the $3.00 paid for a gallon of gas. What about the incalculable number of positive externalities that result from living in a society where everyone has access to cheap, reliable energy? Stern says fossil fuel use "damages economies, particularly in poorer countries." The very reason poorer countries are particularly affected by climate is because they are not industrialized- they don't have access to the cheap reliable energy fossil fuels provide.

 

These sorts of 'studies' do not attempt to look at the cost/benefit analysis of fossil fuels in totality. They are almost all focused solely on the negative aspects of fossil fuels. IMO, the widespread nature of this bias (and a few others) is indicative of an ideological phenomenon.

 

I agree, these things are impossible to calculate anyway.  This is why direct government subsidies should be ended, as well as any government restrictions. Level the playing field and just let the market decide what each form of energy costs.